Linux-Advocacy Digest #735, Volume #25 Tue, 21 Mar 00 20:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Virus Scanning a Linux CDrom (Will Packard)
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? (Bill Anderson)
Corel Linux (piddy)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Craig Kelley)
I WAS WRONG (JoeX1029)
Which distro for server?? (JoeX1029)
M$ dosent use own OS?? (JoeX1029)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) (JEDIDIAH)
Re: M$ did come aboard UNIX camp... (Ciaran)
Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll (JEDIDIAH)
Re: M$ did come aboard UNIX camp... (Ciaran)
Re: I'm back!!! with reasons why U shouldn't use Linux... (JEDIDIAH)
Re: I don't want to stir up any concerns... (JEDIDIAH)
Re: LINUX IS NOT FOR EVERYBODY (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Bsd and Linux (Victor Wagner)
Re: Bsd and Linux (Victor Wagner)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux on the Desktop...TODAY! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: which OS is best? (Daniel Tryba)
Re: Linux on the Desktop...TODAY! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto ("2 + 2")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Will Packard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Virus Scanning a Linux CDrom
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 17:40:42 -0500
Odd. My ThinkPad has no problems automounting ISO 9660 or
audio CDROMs. I don't know offhand what make of drive's in
it, though. Maybe I'll check tonight.
[EMAIL PROTECTED], net wrote:
>
> I thought so but the CDRom on my Thinkpad gets sick trying to read
> Linux CD's.
> It is a Sigma Data drive and even trying to open the readme give's it
> fits.
>
> Steve
>
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 03:52:52 +0000, "Colin R. Day"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Don't CD-ROM's use the ISO 9660 filesystem?
Will
------------------------------
From: Bill Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 15:56:07 -0700
Jon wrote:
>
> On Sun, 05 Mar 2000 16:14:43 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jon) writes:
> > >> Jon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> > (Wolfgang Weisselberg) wrote:
> >
> > >> > > How many machines do *you* know that are in active use today
> > >> > > *and* were so 15,20,30 years ago?
> > >>
> > >> > 2 that I've worked with personally.
> > [...]
> > >One of the 2 machines is (yes, it's still in use) a 386DX40 with
> > >32MB RAM and an RLL drive on a 16MB cache card. I have 4
> > >machines in pieces at home that outpower that thing.
> >
> > A 386DX40 is less than 10 years old. Not 15, not 20, not 30, and most
> > certainly not 38.
>
> <sigh> That 386 machine was not always a 386. It started out as
> an IBM PC-XT (hot stuff at the time). At what point did I claim
> it was 38 years old, eh? You apparently missed the entire point.
Actually, jon, it appears you missed. As I see it, his/her point was
that in 30+ years, the hardware will be significantly different, and
that the hardware changes will eliminate the 'problem'. You countered by
saying that counting or relying on hardware/software obselesence was a
mistake. A counter question was posed, asking you how many machines you
know of, currently in use, that were in use 15, 20, 30 years ago, with
the ultimate end being 38 years (the time frame at issue).
You indicated 2.
He/she then pointed out that a 386 (the only one you gave specific data
about) is not 15,20,30 (let alone 38) years old, thus, does not fit the
qualifications.
You then point out that the machine in question is _not_ in it's
original condition. This point serves against your argument, as quite
significant hardware changes were made to the machine; thus it is is
_not_ the same hardware in use.
> The upgrade, when it was performed, caused so many problems that
> took so long to smooth out that future upgrades were considered
> out of the question. The only remaining option was to transition
> completely to a new platform for MRP. If you've ever looked into
> MRP pricing, you'll understand why this isn't much of an option
> either. Hence, the pathetic 386 is still in use today complete
> with a (now corrected) date problem.
Will it still be in use in another 15, 20, 38 years? I would say not
likely, despite the problems encountered. One reason will be
availability of compatible replacement parts. I would venture to say
that in another 15 years or so, finding 386 compatible parts will be no
small, nor inexpensive, task. Justifying the cost of pricey, antiquated
hardware will be an additional issue lending to replacement of the
hardware.
--
Bill Anderson Linux/Unix Administrator, Security Analyst
ESBU (ARC) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My opinions are just that; _my_ opinions.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (piddy)
Subject: Corel Linux
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 22:54:50 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Corel Linux comes in a perttier blue box than other brands of
Linus(tm).
Comments?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 21 Mar 2000 16:07:39 -0700
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > And chmod is useless against root. If you have root, you can do
> whatever to
> > > a file whether you intend to or not. You cannot protect a file from
> > > accidental modification or delete from root without removing everyones
> > > ability to do so.
> >
> > alias rm='rm -i'
>
> rm -i is *NOT* a solution. It's a pain in the ass. I don't want to
> manually say yes or no to file deletes, I want files that I, as
> root, do not own but others do to not be effected by anything I do
> unless I specifically tell it to.
That's not what I want.
When a user leaves the system, I'd rather just rm -rf their $HOME and
be done with it...
> > Erik, you're holding on to this lame argument by a strand of a
> > thread. An NT Administrator is functionally equivalent to a UNIX root
> > user; end of story.
>
> It would be the end of the story if that were the argument. It's not.
>
> > Nothing, short of a good backup system, will save you from disaster on
> > either system.
>
> Who's talking about disaster? I'm talking about simple typing mistakes.
rm /* is the specific disaster I was commenting on. If you'd care to
name another situation... Backups are the only way you can protect
against these "typing errors" (lest I call them disasters).
> > At least UNIX comes with sane file permissions in a default
> > installation....
>
> Depends on the distribution really.
Name *one* that comes with bad permissions.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Subject: I WAS WRONG
Date: 21 Mar 2000 23:15:04 GMT
damn it anyway i was wrong i read my info wrong about M$ they actually didn't
have their own version of UNIX. Although for quite some time (and they still
may) they ran on UNIX
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Subject: Which distro for server??
Date: 21 Mar 2000 23:22:05 GMT
Iam putting up a web server as soon as my DSL is installed and I was wondering
which distro would make the best server. So far i have RedHat 5.1, 5.2 Caldera
OpenLinux Lite 1.2 with Start Office and Linux Pro 4.1 and hoping to accuire
GNU/Debian and TurboLinux. Also i might soon have Solaris 2.4 (or is that 2.6,
oh weel i don't remember)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Subject: M$ dosent use own OS??
Date: 21 Mar 2000 23:24:48 GMT
M$ has and may still run on UNIX, using NT to just serve mail. They didn't
even run on thier own OS. Dosent that give you confidence in NT??
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: 21 Mar 2000 23:30:22 GMT
On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 12:52:53 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>No. What I mean is, I want to force the administrator to go out of his way
>to delete files he doesn't own, not just issue a callous command line. Much
>like having a keylock on the self-destruct switch of you bomb.
I see what you're talking about now. However, I don't see any examples where
it offers a tangible advantage. It's almost impossible to delete a user's
files by accident. What business does root have typing "rm -rf" from a user's
home directory ?
In practice, rm -rf / will start deleting other files ( besides home
directories ) first -- you can stop it before it gets to /home -- believe
me, I've done it before.
In any case, all the users home directories should be backed up periodically.
The chance of a *user* accidently deleting there files is much greater than
that of root accidently deleting their users files.
This sounds to me like you're trying to spin-doctor a non-issue and make an
issue of it. In the 4 or so years that I've used UNIX, I haven't run into
a single situation where I'd want user accounts "protected" against the
administrator.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 23:27:23 GMT
On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 13:15:40 -0500, John Sheehy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In message <8b33vp$gfl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>"Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote :
>
>>John Sheehy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>: In message <8b33ap$gfl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote :
>>
>>: >I often wonder why AmigaDOS was never considered for an embedded solution.
>>: >I mean, it's tiny, runs on 68000 hardware (which is still a very popular
>>: >architecture for some applications, (please, no Z80 vs. 68k arguments :-),
>>: >and it's awfully fast.
>>
>>: Perhaps it offers little or nothing, and is therefore bloat, in an
>>: embedded environment.
>>
>>Could you be more specific? After, one thing I can think of that AmigaDOS
>>has is a built-in GUI engine. Would this not be useful in an embedded
>>environment? Set-top boxes? Perhaps a control station for a
>>robotics-baed assmebly plant? Or are you just baiting with anti-Amiga
>>sentiment?
>
>No, I just think of an embedded environment as one that runs some
>firmware, and does not need much in the way of OS services. I thought
If you want firmware, the Atari ST was all firmware. It even
had an austere little GUI in there too. The notion that a GUI
must be big and bloated is a Microsoft phenomenon.
>embedded applications usually did not have a user-interface like
>intuition; just buttons and an LED or LCD readout.
--
So long as Apple uses Quicktime to effectively |||
make web based video 'Windows only' Club, / | \
Apple is no less monopolistic than Microsoft.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: M$ did come aboard UNIX camp...
From: Ciaran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 15:48:33 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029) wrote:
>M$ is aboard the UNIX camp. A number of years they created a
UNIX like OS
>called XENIX. But it no doubt sucks just as bad as win.
They didnt create it... they bought it off SCO.
Cheers,
Ciaran
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 23:45:56 GMT
On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 02:56:52 GMT, Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Dr Sinister would say:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED],net wrote:
>>
>>(snip)
>>
>> > I find updating Linux to be more often than not a hodge podge of
>> > technospeak that requires an interpreter who speaks geek to translate.
>> >
>> > Windows by contrast is fast and easy.
>>
>>Perhaps you meant to say "Install Shield by contrast is fast and easy."
>
>Of course, what is more precisely correct is that
>
> "InstallShield is, in contrast with downloading tarballs, and then
> configuring, compiling, and installing them by hand, fast and easy."
>
>Which all adds up to an overall useless observation.
>
>It makes sense to compare the use of an RPM or dpkg package with the
>use of an InstallShield package.
>
>Of course, this is a .advocacy group, where comparisons are made when
>people feel like making them, where reason plays little role...
Even the tarbal vs. rpm argument is useful. Tarballs have the
benefit of being much more flexible with respect to dependencies.
If you happen to be a minor version behind on some library, a
recompile can be simpler. Besides, most tarballs are just a matter
of regurgitating a couple of standard sequences.
./configure
make
make install
These are all fairly descriptive and intuitive (given the
activity) mnemonics. They should be easy enough to remember
after the 5th or 10th time.
--
So long as Apple uses Quicktime to effectively |||
make web based video 'Windows only' Club, / | \
Apple is no less monopolistic than Microsoft.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: M$ did come aboard UNIX camp...
From: Ciaran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 16:00:06 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029) wrote:
>M$ is aboard the UNIX camp. A number of years they created a
UNIX like OS
>called XENIX. But it no doubt sucks just as bad as win.
Eeeek... I meant ATT... it was a port of ATT to the 86 platform
if I recall... they sold it to SCO and SCO made the Xenix/386
versions.
Cheers,
Ciaran, whose brain is going.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: I'm back!!! with reasons why U shouldn't use Linux...
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 23:50:34 GMT
On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 22:36:10 +0100, Davorin Mestric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > 3. It's slow.
>>
>> This one is highly controversial. The same PC I'm using now used to be
>> NT. It's now Linux. The performance difference I feel in the end user
>> role is that Linux is faster ( printing and net surfing especially - I
>> get average 2.5 times faster )
>
>
>however, sometimes not fast enough to move a mouse. no problems in windows
>there.
I can move the mouse around just dandy in Linux. I can even
take a cinepak avi along with that mouse and have it still
play fairly smoothly while being moved all around the screen
frantically.
Whereas WinNT and Win9x especially have problems dealing with
concurrency. While things might look 'snappier' under ideal
conditions, that 'snappiness' deteriorates rapidly once you
put the system under load.
--
So long as Apple uses Quicktime to effectively |||
make web based video 'Windows only' Club, / | \
Apple is no less monopolistic than Microsoft.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: I don't want to stir up any concerns...
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 23:53:23 GMT
On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 06:09:24 -0500, Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 21 Mar 2000, No Name wrote:
>
>> So the ability to write documents in a bloated piece of software would
>> make an already stable and usable OS a "decent" desktop OS?
>
>Is MS Office really that bloated? How can you tell? Did you try
>measuring the memory usage of Office and compared it to that of an
>equivalent Unix app such as Star Office? I'd bet Office is less bloated
>than SO, and it's better looking, too.
You can use the applications on similar systems. You can use the
applications while giving Linux a distinct handicap in both CPU
and RAM. Linux still tends to come out on top. StarOffice is a
bloated pig but that's StarOffice.
>
>Actually, I'm a UNIX advocate. But, we've got to make objective
>judgements here. Just because MS makes something doesn't make it bloated.
It's a fairly safe bet however.
--
So long as Apple uses Quicktime to effectively |||
make web based video 'Windows only' Club, / | \
Apple is no less monopolistic than Microsoft.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: LINUX IS NOT FOR EVERYBODY
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 23:56:59 GMT
On 20 Mar 2000 06:25:08 GMT, Bastian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 18:08:43 -0800, Ilya Grishashvili wrote:
>>I feel sorry when I see that Linux more and more looks like
>>M$ Windoze (understand me right, I mean user interface, all
>>the fancy buttons and stuff).
>>
>
>Linux looks better than Windows. Just look at the enlightenment/Gnome thing.
>But you're right, everything bears some kinda resemblance with M$.
That has more to do with Microsoft stealing widely than any
intent on the part of Linux programmers. There are even bits
of the Win9x that were taken from X. Infact, that was one of
the reasons I first like the new interface. It had bits of
MacOS and X that I liked.
Others that get replicated in Linux to some extent are MacOS,
RISCOS, OS/2 and especially NeXT. A dock is quite a bit better
than the icon clutter typical on a Windows desktop.
--
So long as Apple uses Quicktime to effectively |||
make web based video 'Windows only' Club, / | \
Apple is no less monopolistic than Microsoft.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Victor Wagner)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Date: 21 Mar 2000 10:10:40 +0300
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> too many low-quality programs,
: It's also worht mentioning that some great projects ( eg: QT and KDE )
: originated on Linux.
It is perfect example of low-quality program in my opinion.
:>too many security holes.
: I'd say *this* is the main thing BSD ( at least OpenBSD ) has over Linux.
:> I know people who say (and have arguments to
:>back this opinion up) that properly admninstered NT 4.0 is more stable
:>than modern Linuxes, like RedHat 6.1.
: Sure, but what if you properly administer Linux as well ?
: I mean, if you're going to run all the GUI stuff and Netscape on your server
: with the root account, I could see a lock up happening ( due to the machine
: getting memory starved ), but it's pretty solid if you just leave it in
: console mode.
Just one example:
Open root shell, set hard limits to process memory size to some
resonable values, say 32Mb, su to non-privileged account and run
following command
perl -e '$a = " "x 60*1024*1024; print length($a),"\n"'
What do you expect to happen? I expect program to crash due to exceeding
memory quota. But on glibc2 system it will succeed.
It means that no matter how properly you use ulimit on Linux, one
process running as nobody (say apache) is able to eat up all system memory,
and cause some important processes i.e. sshd to crash. And if sshd
crashes, you'll not be able to log in and fix things. So, one bug in
user mod_perl script can break your system down.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Victor Wagner)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Date: 21 Mar 2000 10:13:55 +0300
Chris Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>Possibly. There would appear to be a trade off in speed / features for
:>robust code. The Linux code is pretty stable, but at least OpenBSD kills
:>it in the security stakes, because there is a focus on refining the code
:>they've already got, rather than churning out more.
: Don't be too sure about claiming this. Remember RedHat will be including
: tripwire with it's dist pretty soon and the other dists will follow, and
: the RedHat 6.2 beta defaults with a lot of things turned off that used to be
: turned on in the older RedHat 5.0-6.0 dists.
RedHat will be doing something good for production system? Disbelieve!
They even don't include sudo by default. And tripwire is in Debian for ages.
If you are trying to compare Linux as production system with real Unices
like BSD and Solaris, you should use Debian or Suse as comparation
point. RedHat or Corel wouldn't withstand even NT.
--
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 00:13:12 GMT
On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 20:44:31 GMT, fysg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In fact, almost every person will need some Windows application, that's
>because in an intranet one should have at least one Windows client (NT WK,
>2K Pro or W98). Perhaps if you do have a strange printer you may then want
>to serve printer with NT/W2K Server ... but everything else could (dare I to
For serious printing, it's far more likely that a business will
be using a more expensive, heavy duty printer with PCL3 or PS
support.
>say should ?) run on Linux, I mean, other clients, Internet software, file
>serving and of course firewalling.
--
So long as Apple uses Quicktime to effectively |||
make web based video 'Windows only' Club, / | \
Apple is no less monopolistic than Microsoft.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Linux on the Desktop...TODAY!
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 23:59:53 GMT
On 20 Mar 2000 17:23:35 GMT, David Steinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Wow! These are exciting times to be using Linux!
>
>Corel has just announced that they are shipping WordPerfect Office Suite
>for Linux tommorrow:
>http://www.newsalert.com/bin/clipstry?StoryId=ConwWudCbmdm1tG
StarOffice was already quite suitable for many people who had
to deal with Windows-esque content. SO5 even handles Excel
files better than the 97 version of 123.
Yes I know that SO5 is a bit knewer, but I had higher expectations
of Lotus...
[deletia]
--
So long as Apple uses Quicktime to effectively |||
make web based video 'Windows only' Club, / | \
Apple is no less monopolistic than Microsoft.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Daniel Tryba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: 22 Mar 2000 00:22:42 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>>Here's a hint: IBM did such a preload. It didn't sell.
>> That's funny, Ralph Nader couldn't seem to get IBM to
>> preload OS/2 for him. This was also well covered in
>> the computing press at that time.
> Very recently. IBM * did * preload OS/2 shortly after the split, and
> those boxes did * not * sell
In about 1995 Vobis (computer stores in the Netherlands and Germany
(maybe more)) and some others preinstalled OS/2 3.0. That was no big
success.
>>>> They sat on their asses from 1985 to 1995 not bothering
>>>> to fully exploit the IA32 instruction set and not
>>>> bothering to fully deploy gui based systems.
>>>Hmmn. I must have imagined Windows 3.1 and NT.
>> Windows 3.1 came out in the 90's and was still primitive
>> when compared to earlier rivals.
> And the 90's were not in your timeline of '85 to '95? Interesting.
> And "primitive" was not your claim. You said "failed to deploy." You
> were wrong.
According to MS Windows95 should have been the first "32-bit" OS. So
that would mean anything before it was less and didn't make full use of
the technology available in the 386+ Intel machines. The 386 appeared in
the 198x??? So it took MS 5+10-x years to fully support the 386.....
Win3.1 had some features that could only be run on a 32-bit machine but
the core was still a "16-bit" kernel. It would even run on a 286 in
standard mode. The devellopment of win32s made an end to the 286 portion
(as did the 3.11 (network version)) but that was somewhere near 93-.
OS/2 was almost fully 32-bit in 92 IIRC (execption IFS code???)
and Linux was always 32-bit (atleast from 1.0+)
--
Daniel Tryba
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Linux on the Desktop...TODAY!
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 00:01:56 GMT
On 21 Mar 2000 07:15:16 GMT, David Steinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>piddy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>: On 20 Mar 2000 17:23:35 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David
>: Steinberg) wrote:
>: <snipped>
>: You, sir, are a troll!
>
>You, sir, are jumping to conclusions.
>
>I was ignorant about the state of GNOME. So sue me. The point of my post
Pointing your browser at www.gnome.org is all you need to do to
cure that particular condition...
Alternately, you could point yourself at icewalk.com, freshmeat.net
or Tucows...
[deletia]
--
So long as Apple uses Quicktime to effectively |||
make web based video 'Windows only' Club, / | \
Apple is no less monopolistic than Microsoft.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!!
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 00:06:25 GMT
On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 22:05:38 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
<[EMAIL PROTECTED],net> wrote:
>Obviously you have never been in retail.
>
>Stores don't re-order items that don't sell. The absolute last resort
They also don't waste shelf space when they could just as well
get someone to PAY them for that space. Businesses, including
retail stores are in business to turn a profit. What doesn't
do this tends to get dumped rather quickly.
>is sending dud items (like Linux) back to the manufacturer because
>typically the restocking costs are split amongst the distributer and
>retailer and the retailer gets a credit back for the difference. This
>is why you see so many dust covered copies of a given program (Linux
>for example) at certain retailers. The stores are always counting on
There's no dust collecting in the Linux sections of my local
retailers and the Linux shelf space is GROWING. This is true
for both large chain bookstores and chain computer stores.
>some unknowing sucker to come along and purchase a copy of that dud
>program, like Linux for example.
[deletia]
If consumers are aware enough to return NT5, then they should
be returning Linux too in droves. Apparently they're not.
--
So long as Apple uses Quicktime to effectively |||
make web based video 'Windows only' Club, / | \
Apple is no less monopolistic than Microsoft.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 19:44:10 -0500
Yep, I put it in a suitcase by mistake, left it at a foreign airport locker
for THREE years, came back and it was still running.
The only time I had to "boot" it was when I accidently kicked the suitcase
draggin' it down the stairs.
2 + 2
Chad Myers wrote in message <89mfd7$3da$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> I know people who crash NT4 on a daily basis & NT5 on a weekly basis.
>
>That's a load of crap and you know it.
>
>Coming from a guy who can't do 96/12 and who doesn't even
>know the basic specs of the product, I find it hard to
>believe anything you claim is even remotely clost to the
>truth...
>
>> I personally have managed to make NT4 tank more often than I
>> install a new Linux kernel.
>
>Especially stupid stuff like this. What was it? NT4 SP0?
>
>
>
>-Chad
>
>
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
